Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 1

[powerbomb1411]

Die Smiling nailed it completely.

Studios look strongly towards domestic box office when thinking about sequels and other avenues for said character or universe, and that is the best way to gauge the general public's want or distaste for a particular film. Green Hornet stalling at 97 million with a 120 million (reported) budget is not a "success". Doesn't mean the studios can't make money if it is below the budget on the domestic, but to call it a success is a bit off base.

Anyway, this is the Green Lantern section.

You're absolutely correct. World wide gross should be counted and does. End of discussion.

 

[dnno1]

According to a book I read by Victor Goldberg, there are distribution costs associated with the foreign and domestic markets. These costs are usually 40% for the foreign market and 30% for the domestic market. This only means that your foreign box-office take would have to be greater than 53% of the worldwide take for it to be more significant. For example, "Green Hornet" had a $97.1 million domestic box-office and a $128.4 million foriegn box-office take. If you do the math to take away the distribution costs you will find that the foreign net is greater than the domestic by about $9 million (i.e. $77 million - $68 million). In fact, if you look at the top $25 films distributed worldwide over the past year, you will find that that is the case with all of them (foriegn BO >/= 53%) except for 4 films ("Iron Man 2", "The Karate Kid", "Grown Ups", and "Little Fockers"). So respectfully, it is just the contrary that studios are looking strongly towards the domestic box office in today's market (just think about it: why do you think they chose a foreigner to be the next Superman?). Like I said before the U.S. does not have as strong an economy as it did about 10 years ago and the foreign audience has caught up.

 

[Showtime]

You're absolutely correct. World wide gross should be counted and does. End of discussion.

Wait what? Did you read what I wrote?

According to a book I read by Victor Goldberg, there are distribution costs associated with the foreign and domestic markets. These costs are usually 40% for the foreign market and 30% for the domestic market. This only means that your foreign box-office take would have to be greater than 53% of the worldwide take for it to be more significant. For example, "Green Hornet" had a $97.1 million domestic box-office and a $128.4 million foriegn box-office take. If you do the math to take away the distribution costs you will find that the foreign net is greater than the domestic by about $9 million (i.e. $77 million - $68 million). In fact, if you look at the top $25 films distributed worldwide over the past year, you will find that that is the case with all of them (foriegn BO >/= 53%) except for 3 films ("Iron Man 2", "The Karate Kid", and "Little Fockers"). So respectfully, it is just the contrary that studios are looking strongly towards the domestic box office in today's market (just think about it: why do you think they chose a foreigner to be the next Superman?). Like I said before the U.S. does not have as strong an economy as it did about 10 years ago and the foreign audience has caught up.

Well...respectfully, the essay you read from Columbia Law circa 1997 is a little out of date and a not as detailed in regards to the breakdown of what studios have to deal with related worldwide distribution. This article from 2005 is more in tune with how it actually works.

Overseas is not all it's cracked up to be. Again, money is money, so of course you want it to do well overseas...but it's just not the same animal as domestic. Look at Avatar or Dark Knight. Those films cleaned up overseas, not to mention other films, but it's more of an uphill battle overseas. I'm
not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying it doesn't matter as much as domestic.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money

Ritualistically every Monday, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Variety and other newspapers publish the weekly box-office
grosses in an authoritative-looking table. Unlike the bygone era when Hollywood studios owned their own theatres, nowadays these
dazzling box-office grosses have little, if any, relation to the profits of Hollywood studios. For one thing, theseʻgrosses' are not that of the
studios but that of the independently-owned movie houses. The movie houses eventually remit – after deducting their share and the so-
calledʻhouse allowance' – between 40 and 50 per cent of the gross in America. Overseas, the studios get even less.
Furthermore, studios have to pay the entire bill for the advertising and other inducements required to lure the ticket-buyers to the theatres.

Last year, studios spent an average of $39 million per film on advertising and prints in America, but only recovered $20.6 million
per film from the theatres. So, on average, they paid more to get people to buy tickets than they got back from the theatres (and this
dismal calculation does not include the cost of making the film). And advertising bills are becoming even higher: according to the New
York Times, Warner Bros committed $60 million to marketing Alexander in the US. If so, Warner Bros share of even a $100 millionʻbox-
office gross' would not pay the advertising bill.

When Hollywood movies fail to find audiences in America, it is often claimed that these movies redeem their losses overseas. The
assumption here is that the box-office receipts abroad are pure gravy for the movie studios. For example, the usually financially-savvy
Wall Street Journal reported on 19 November 2004 that three notableʻduds' in America – Troy, The Terminaland King Arthur – “ended up

turning handsome profits” because “in each case, box-office receipts from outside the US far outweighed domestic returns.” It then cited
impressive sounding numbers:Troy “made” $363 million internationally; The Terminal, $96.3 million, and King Arthur, $149.8 million – as if
these receipts represented their salvation. In reality, however, these impressive-sounding receipts represented the foreign theatres'
revenue, not the studios' share of it. In fact, the studios get an even smaller share of the foreign than of the American box-office. Last
year, the studios' share averaged about 40 per cent of ticket sales. And from those revenues studios have to pay for foreign advertising,
prints, taxes, insurance, translations, etc. Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15 per cent of what is
reported as the foreign gross.

Consider a typical movie – Disney's Gone In 60 Seconds. Its reported foreign gross' was $129,477,395. Of that sum, Disney got
$55,979.966 and paid out $37,986,053 in expenses.

They included:

Foreign advertising: $25,197,723
Foreign prints: $5,660.837
Foreign taxes: $5,077,286
Foreign versions:$ 822,997
Foreign shipping:$ 454,973
Currency conversion: $266,900
Foreign trade dues $122,275

After paying these expenses, Disney was left with just $17,993,913 – a far cry from the reported $129,477,395 gross'. And the film is still
over $153 million in the red. So while the foreign box-office helps out, it does not necessarily make a movie profitable.

Now if we can get back on topic with Lantern I would be happy about that.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

We are probably 10 days away from a new trailer now. Rumored to be with Sucker Punch but as other people here have noted, it will probably be released a day or two before online. I hope we get an official poster this month as well. If not by the end of March then at least with Wonder Con coming up on April 1st. I don't want it to copy Star Wars but something epic like that would certainly be how I'd go.

Something similar to this, with Hal in the spot of Abin Sur. It would be nice if it featured several members of the Corps too, but I think something with the space epic feel in a simplistic way suits it best.

 

[Showtime]

That's a great poster. You can see the Star Wars influence throughout. Hopefully we will get something to that effect, if not that, maybe something similar to the Superman Returns poster with Superman floating over earth.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I'm starting to feel like Sony Imageworks didn't know what they were getting into with GREEN LANTERN. They're STILL working on trailer #2

http://***********/Poni_Boy

 

[protocida]

Understandable, after all they ***** they got with Trailer #1.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

He said it will still be with Sucker Punch for sure at least. They are probably just being very particular about this one and trying to get it as close to perfect as possible. Ready for some new footage to hopefully give more people a positive opinion on it.

 

[Spideyfan93]

Jesus Christ, the special effects must be ridiculous!

 

[Showtime]

Who cares if they are still working on it, doesn't mean they "don't know what they are doing". Better to get it as right as they can if you ask me.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Who cares if they are still working on it, doesn't mean they "don't know what they are doing". Better to get it as right as they can if you ask me.

Exactly. It seems to me they are working hard to get every detail just right to show something glorious to the world. Lets hope so.

 

[I Am The Knight]

(just think about it: why do you think they chose a foreigner to be the next Superman?).

I think it has more to do with the fact that he was the best choice for the role, you know. With a role like Superman, the character is supposed to sell itself.

Now Showtime...That article you posted on grosses makes me want to slit my wrists. Do studios really have it that bad?

 

[Dark Knight]

We are probably 10 days away from a new trailer now. Rumored to be with Sucker Punch but as other people here have noted, it will probably be released a day or two before online. I hope we get an official poster this month as well. If not by the end of March then at least with Wonder Con coming up on April 1st. I don't want it to copy Star Wars but something epic like that would certainly be how I'd go.

Something similar to this, with Hal in the spot of Abin Sur. It would be nice if it featured several members of the Corps too, but I think something with the space epic feel in a simplistic way suits it best.

I would love to see individual posters like these at Wonder Con!

 

[Dark Knight]

Who cares if they are still working on it, doesn't mean they "don't know what they are doing". Better to get it as right as they can if you ask me.

Exactly!

 

[Showtime]

Exactly. It seems to me they are working hard to get every detail just right to show something glorious to the world. Lets hope so.

Spoken like a true gentleman.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he was the best choice for the role, you know. With a role like Superman, the character is supposed to sell itself.

Now Showtime...That article you posted on grosses makes me want to slit my wrists. Do studios really have it that bad?

Cavill being cast apparently had a lot to do with Nolan. He sees something in him and Nolan has a good eye for talent.

Overseas sure ain't simple. No studio necessarily has it bad on any level, but if making millions were so easy we would all be doing it.

Exactly!

I'm not sure how this movie is going to pan out box office wise or critically, but I am sure it will look good.

 

[redhawk23]

(just think about it: why do you think they chose a foreigner to be the next Superman?). Like I said before the U.S. does not have as strong an economy as it did about 10 years ago and the foreign audience has caught up.

because he can act and look the part?

I mean why is a foreigner playing Batman?

These movies are produced by a man with dual citizenship.

 

[The Sage]

http://***********/Poni_Boy

Goodness. I wonder how close it'll look to the finished product in the second trailer?

 

[dnno1]

Wait what? Did you read what I wrote?



Well...respectfully, the essay you read from Columbia Law circa 1997 is a little out of date and a not as detailed in regards to the breakdown of what studios have to deal with related worldwide distribution. This article from 2005 is more in tune with how it actually works.

Overseas is not all it's cracked up to be. Again, money is money, so of course you want it to do well overseas...but it's just not the same animal as domestic. Look at Avatar or Dark Knight. Those films cleaned up overseas, not to mention other films, but it's more of an uphill battle overseas. I'm
not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying it doesn't matter as much as domestic.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money



Now if we can get back on topic with Lantern I would be happy about that.

Before we go back to Green Lantern, there are two things that should be said about the article you linked to. First off, "Gone in 60 seconds" was made more than 11 years ago, so that data is almost as old as my citation. Secondly, the U.S. domestice box office has similar fees and normally advertising is not included as part of the production budget that should be used in comparison with the foriegn counterpart. That can often have its own revenue stream since there are licensing fees and royalty revenue from promotions in some of the ads. If there wasn't money in the foriegn box office, I am certain they would release films there, but obviously that is not the case.

 

[dnno1]

http://***********/Poni_Boy

This guy was wrong on the release date of the trailer and he's just covering up for his mistake. It should be coming out next week with "Sucker Punch" as advertized. There is no need to blame Sony Image works for his error.

 

[dnno1]

BTW. Henry Cavil got the part because Joe Mangielo tuned it down (due to scheduling conflicts with "True Blood"). As far as I am concerned he was the sloppy seconds. I am sure they considered him to attract the European market (just like Bale).

 

[RoughNTumble]

BTW. Henry Cavil got the part because Joe Mangielo tuned it down (due to scheduling conflicts with "True Blood"). As far as I am concerned he was the sloppy seconds. I am sure they considered him to attract the European market (just like Bale).

No he didn't. Cavill was first choice.

 

[The Sage]

If sequels are made, I hope Sony Imageworks--if they return--will have a better plan. I can only imagine how long it would take to finish special effects, if they did a story based on the Sinestro Wars.

 

[Showtime]

Before we go back to Green Lantern, there are two things that should be said about the article you linked to. First off, "Gone in 60 seconds" was made more than 11 years ago, so that data is almost as old as my citation. Secondly, the U.S. domestice box office has similar fees and normally advertising is not included as part of the production budget that should be used in comparison with the foriegn counterpart. That can often have its own revenue stream since there are licensing fees and royalty revenue from promotions in some of the ads. If there wasn't money in the foriegn box office, I am certain they would release films there, but obviously that is not the case.

The time period of the actual numbers is irrelevant, the actual process is more up to date than what you presented in your article. My argument wasn't that there "wasn't money" it was the overseas isn't as lucrative as domestic, and studios look at domestic as more important because of it on
all decisions made regarding said film and possible sequels. You haven't really been able to dispute the fact that domestic is more important to the
studios than overseas take, in fact you're saying it's the opposite.

This guy was wrong on the release date of the trailer and he's just covering up for his mistake. It should be coming out next week with "Sucker Punch" as advertized. There is no need to blame Sony Image works for his error.

This I agree with you on. I'm not sure why people are listening to this guy
and taking his word as gospel.

BTW. Henry Cavil got the part because Joe Mangielo tuned it down (due to scheduling conflicts with "True Blood"). As far as I am concerned he was the sloppy seconds. I am sure they considered him to attract the European market (just like Bale).

No he didn't. Cavill was first choice.

Again, I agree with Dnno on this one as well. To me it sounds like Snyder wanted Mangiello and Nolan wanted Cavill, of course Nolan wins out and
Mangiello was busy with True Blood anyway. Granted Mangiello could be using his schedule as an excuse as to why he didn't get the role.

 

[protocida]

Filiponi has given us many important information about the movie. You might don't like the guy, but his contribution to the fans and his reliability are undeniable.

 

[dnno1]

The time period of the actual numbers is irrelevant, the actual process is more up to date than what you presented in your article. My argument wasn't that there "wasn't money" it was the overseas isn't as lucrative as domestic, and studios look at domestic as more important because of it on
all decisions made regarding said film and possible sequels. You haven't really been able to dispute the fact that domestic is more important to the
studios than overseas take, in fact you're saying it's the opposite

But you haven't shown the domestic BO numbers for "Gone in 60 Seconds". How can you give a fair comparison without those numbers? Certainly outside of the expense for currency conversion (which is a fraction of the gross), there are similar expenses for the domestic budget that are the same or higher than the foreign market and we would have to see that to know for sure. The article is kind of misleading in that aspect.